Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information
31 December 1964







In a letter dated 7 July 1964, Israel drew the Security Council's urgent attention to a series of recent armed attacks by Syrian forces upon Israel citizens and Israel civilian activities in the vicinity of the Israel-Syrian border. These attacks, the letter said, were a flagrant violation of the Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement and the deteriorating border situation was a serious threat to international peace and security.

On 8 July 1964, Syria complained to the Council that between 2 and 6 July Israel forces had intermittently opened fire on Arab farmers. It drew the Council's attention to this new wave of alleged aggression and the great danger which threatened peace and security in the area.

On 6 August 1964, Syria informed the Council that Israel armed forces had, on 5 August, attacked Syrian posts across the Demarcation Line. A heavy exchange of fire ensued, which lasted until the following day, when a cease-fire was effected at the request of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. Israel's wanton aggression was a clear violation of its obligation under the Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, endangering peace and security in the area.

On 10 August, Israel replied that an Israel routine night patrol, consisting of six men, had by error crossed the Demarcation Line into Syrian territory and that it could not have launched a premeditated attack against fortified Syrian positions. Israel stated further that one of the members of the patrol had been wounded and had not returned to his unit and that the efforts made by the United Nations to bring the Syrians to cease fire in order to rescue the wounded man had been of no avail.


In November 1964, following fighting on the Israel-Syrian border, Syria and Israel both requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council.

In a letter dated 14 November, Syria requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider "the latest aggression committed by Israel against the Syrian Arab Republic."

On 15 November, Israel also requested the Security Council to meet urgently to consider "repeated acts of aggression" committed by Syrian armed forces against the citizens and territory of Israel and "threats by official spokesmen of the Syrian Government against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel."

In a letter of 14 November to the President of the Security Council, the representative of Israel asserted that, on 13 November, the Israel villages of Tel el-Hamra and Kibbutz Dan had been subjected to Syrian artillery and mortar bombardment, resulting in considerable damage to dwellings and farms. After the Syrians had disregarded the initial attempts by the United Nations Observers to arrange a cease-fire, Israel planes were obliged to go into operation in order to halt the bombardment of the Israel villages. The employment of Israel planes as an emergency defence measure must be understood in relation to the nature of the terrain: the border area was completely dominated by the adjacent high ground on the Syrian side.

The complaints were considered by the Security Council at nine meetings between 16 November and 21 December. The representatives of Israel and Syria, who were not members of the Council, were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. After placing the question on its agenda on 16 November, the Council deferred further discussion pending receipt of a report from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) concerning the incident of 13 November.

In his report, transmitted on 24 November, the Chief of Staff pointed out that the recent tension in the area was related to the question as to whether the reconstructed road in the area of Tel-El-Qadi (the Israel "Tel Dan") used by Israel encroached upon Syrian territory.

With regard to the incident of 13 November, he reported that firing was actually started by the Syrian side, which alleged that an Israel armoured carrier had encroached into Syrian territory. Israel, on the other hand, resorted to aerial bombing of Syrian positions along the Banias-Kuneitra road, after the Chairman of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission (ISMAC) had sought a cease-fire which was accepted by the delegates of the parties to that body. The Israel delegate alleged that he had not been able to contact all the Israel positions regarding the proposed cease-fire.

In conclusion, the Chief of Staff indicated that a solution to the question of encroachment of the Israel road in Syrian territory might reduce tension in the area, and he suggested the two parties might accept the continuation of the surveying in the Tel-El-Qadi area which had been carried out in 1963 by a Canadian team. Pending a final solution of this problem, the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission should continue to assess the truth concerning any illegal crossing of the Armistice Demarcation Line. The Chief of Staff urged Israel to attend the meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commission and accept the Commission's competence in matters pertaining to the Demilitarized Zone.

On 8 December, Morocco submitted a draft resolution whereby the Council, among other things, would: (1) recall relevant provisions of the Security Council's resolutions of 19 January 1956 and 9 April 1962 concerning the settlement of disputes through the intermediary of the Mixed Armistice Commission; (2) note that Israel, in the course of its aggression against Syria on 13 November 1964, used its air force to bomb peaceful villages and defensive positions in Syrian territory; (3) condemn the air action undertaken by Israel against the territory of Syria on 13 November; (4) call upon Israel to take effective measures to prevent the repetition of such actions; and (5) call upon the Governments of Syria and Israel strictly to apply the provisions of the Armistice Agreement and fully to participate in the meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commission.

On 17 December, another draft resolution was put forward by the United Kingdom and the United States. Among other things, the Council would thereby: (1) deplore the renewal of military action on the Israel-Syrian Armistice Demarcation Line on 13 November 1964; (2) recommend specifically in the light of the Chief of Staff's observations: (a) that the parties co-operate with the Chairman of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission for the purpose of maintaining peace in the area; (b) that the parties co-operate promptly in the continuation of the survey begun in 1963, commencing in the area of Tel-El-Qadi, and proceeding thereafter to completion in fulfilment of the recommendations in the Chief of Staff's reports of 24 August 1963 and 24 November 1964; and (c) that the parties participate fully in the meetings of Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission; and (3) request the Secretary-General to inform the Council, by 31 March, of the progress that had been made towards implementing these suggestions.

The sponsors of the two-power text said their draft resolution was not intended as a substitute for the Moroccan draft resolution; the two texts were concerned with different aspects of the incident of 13 November. They thought it advisable that the Council should express itself specifically on the problem relating to the future and to the endorsement of the efforts of the Chief of Staff, in order to prevent a recurrence of such an incident as that of 13 November; their text applied primarily not to the incident of 13 November but to the prevention of repetitions of such an incident.

At the same meeting, on 17 December, the Moroccan draft resolution was put to the vote and was rejected by 3 votes in favour (Czechoslovakia, Morocco and the USSR), 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

Morocco then introduced a series of amendments to the United Kingdom-United States draft resolution. By the first and second amendments, the Security Council would deplore Israel's violation of the Armistice Demarcation Line in the area of Tel-El-Qadi, as well as Israel's unjustified resort to aerial action, instead of deploring only the renewal of military action. The third amendment concerned the provision to have the Council take "special note" of the observations of the Chief of Staff in paragraphs 24-27 and recommend "specifically ..."; it proposed the deletion of the words "special" and "specifically."

The fourth amendment was to revise the recommendation concerning a survey, to the effect that the suggested survey should cover "the entire Armistice Demarcation Line, including the area of Tel-El-Qadi and the three sectors of the Demilitarized Zone." A fifth Moroccan amendment was to revise the recommendation "that the parties participate fully in the meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commission" to one that "Israel as well as Syria participate fully" in these meetings.

On 21 December, the Council voted on the proposals before it. The Moroccan amendments were voted on paragraph by paragraph. The third and fifth amendments were adopted; the other amendments were rejected. The United Kingdom-United States draft resolution, as amended, received 8 votes in favour to 3 against (Czechoslovakia, Morocco and the USSR) and was not adopted, one of the negative votes having been cast by a permanent member of the Council.

Commenting on the failure of the Council to adopt the joint draft resolution, the representative of the United States said that this in no way derogated from the responsibility of the parties to carry out, in co-operation with the Chief of Staff, the terms of the General Armistice Agreement.

During the debate, Syria charged that the Israel air strikes on 13 November constituted an armed aggression according to Article 51 of the Charter and that it was a flagrant violation of the Armistice Agreement. On that day, an Israel armoured patrol crossed the Syrian frontier and shelled Syrian villages. Firing was returned, which was directed against military installations from which the shelling emanated. Subsequently, Syria accepted the cease-fire proposed by UNTSO, while Israel resorted to aerial bombing of Syrian villages along the border.

It was clear, the representative of Syria said, that the Israel action was not strictly limited to the needs of defence but was converted into reprisals or punitive sanctions which had been rightly condemned by the United Nations. Syria was opposed to Israel military patrols on the road in the area of the demilitarized zone but was prepared to discuss, at any time, any aspect of this question in the Mixed Armistice Commission.

In reply, the representative of Israel asserted that the incident of 13 November had been initiated by Syrian military positions opening fire on normal Israel activities across the border. Because of the heights of the Syrian positions in this area, the Israeli Government resorted to the air strike as the only effective means available to halt the shelling of Israel villages. From the Israel viewpoint, this was not an act of reprisal.

The Israel road which followed the former international boundary between Palestine and Syria served, among other purposes, to ensure regular patrolling of long and vulnerable borders with hostile neighbours. Israel was prepared to agree to the continuation of the survey begun by the Canadian team in 1963 for the purpose of establishing the position of the road in relation to the border. The Council, it was submitted, might wish to take two specific measures to prevent further deterioration of the situation; it could insist that Syria refrain: (1) from further interference with Israel activities in the border zone; and (2) refrain from further threats against the political independence of Israel.

Most of the Council members endorsed the recommendations of the Chief of Staff, including those on the need for a survey of the frontier and the strengthening of the Mixed Armistice Commission.

The representatives of Brazil and China said that Israel's aerial retaliation was unjustified and out of proportion to the nature of the provocation.

The representative of France observed that the main cause of tension between Syria and Israel related to the strengthening of the military forces of these countries in the border areas. He urged that the Council request both parties to bring these forces back to the levels which were provided for in the Armistice Agreement.

The Syrian position was supported by Morocco, Czechoslovakia and the USSR. They urged that the Council should condemn the aggression of Israel and insist on arrangements to make the system of the Armistice Agreement work and be fully respected. The representative of Morocco said that Israel's wide aerial attacks were disproportionate to the localized nature of the incident. This bombardment was the reaffirmation of an aggressive policy, which was as illegal as it was unjustified.

In the opinion of the USSR representative, the Chief of Staff's report indicated that, by endeavouring to carry out its project for the construction of the road, Israel had acted in a unilateral fashion, since the demarcation in this area was not clear-cut and was not recognized by both parties. The Council's condemnation of Israel's aggression should take a form that Israel be clearly warned that the Security Council had firmly and unswervingly decided to put an end to Israel's aggressive acts.

The representatives of Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States deemed it essential to avoid condemnation and to concentrate instead on the practical steps of conciliation between the parties. They endorsed the Chief of Staff's recommendations, especially that for a survey of the location of the Israel road and its relation to the Armistice Demarcation Line. The United States representative emphasized that upon the success of such a limited survey depended the possibility of more general ones. He urged full participation in the activities of the Mixed Armistice Commission, which, more than any other single act, would increase the chances for a more effective observance of the truce by both sides.


On 18 September, Israel called to the attention of the Security Council certain decisions of the "Arab Summit Conference" held in Alexandria, United Arab Republic, from 5 to 11 September 1964. Israel said that the Arab Conference had, in its closing proclamation, defined the national cause "as that of liberating Palestine from Zionist imperialism ... for which plans have already been laid down." The Alexandria decisions were in conflict with the United Nations Charter and constituted a threat to international peace and security, Israel asserted.

By a letter dated 6 October, the representatives of 13 Arab States - Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Republic and Yemen - transmitted to the Council the text of the Declaration of the Council of Heads of State of the Member States of the Arab League, issued at the Alexandria Conference. This letter also stated that the Israel representative had made deliberate misrepresentations and deletions regarding the Declaration issued by the Arab Conference.

This Declaration had confirmed the views that their Governments, separately and jointly, had expressed in the United Nations and in international conferences, to uphold and restore the rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland. The Arab communication added that the record of Israel in the international community hardly qualified it to accuse other States of violating the United Nations Charter or of posing a threat to international peace and security.

In a letter of 19 October 1964, the representative of Israel, referring to the communication of 6 October from the 13 Arab States, reasserted that the official text of the Declaration corroborated the charge made in Israel's letter of 18 September that the purport of the Arab Conference was the liquidation of Israel. The reply of the Arab representatives, he added, failed to deny that charge, and sought to divert attention to other matters.


On 3 December 1963,1/ it will be remembered, the General Assembly, among other things, called upon the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to continue its efforts for the implementation of paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III) 2/ concerning the repatriation or compensation of the refugees from Palestine. (Paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III), among other things, provided that refugees wishing to return to their homes and to live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation would be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine was instructed to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and payment of compensation.) (See also pp. 178-79 below.)

On 11 May 1964, the Conciliation Commission submitted its twenty-second progress report, which said that its programme for the identification and valuation of Arab refugee immovable property in Israel had been completed. The report also indicated that a technical representative would be available to receive and answer inquiries of a technical nature in connexion with the programme. Subsequently, the Commission stated that it believed individuals would wish to verify the registration of their property and to take this opportunity to make representations as to the nature of the property which would have a bearing on its value. At the same time, it stated that it did not intend to imply that it had reached any conclusions concerning the implementation of resolution 194 (III). It believed, however, that in any solution forthcoming in the future and which involved property, it would be essential to insure that ownership was adequately verified.



SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 1162, 1164-1169, 1179, 1182.

S/5801. Letter of 7 July 1964 from Israel.
S/5805, S/5854. Letters of 8 July and 6 August 1964 from Syria.
S/5874. Letter of 10 August 1964 from Israel.
S/6044, S/6051. Letters of 14 and 15 November 1964 from Syria.
S/6045, S/6046, S/6047. Letters of 14 and 15 November 1964 from Israel.
S/6048, S/6049. Reports by Secretary-General concerning credentials (Israel and Syria).
S/6061 and Corr.1-3 and Add.1. Report by Secretary-General concerning incident involving fighting between Israel and Syria on 13 November 1964 on northern area of Armistice Demarcation Line established by Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement. Report transmitted by Chief of Staff of United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Jerusalem.
S/6077. Letter of 30 November 1964 from Jordan.
S/6085 and Rev.1. Morocco: draft resolution and revision rejected by Security Council on 17 December 1964, meeting 1179, by 3 votes in favour (Czechoslovakia, Morocco, USSR), 0 against, and 8 abstentions (Bolivia, Brazil, China, France, Ivory Coast, Norway, United Kingdom, United States).
S/6113. United Kingdom and United States: draft resolution, as amended by Morocco, failed of adoption by Council on 21 December 1964, meeting 1182, due to negative vote of permanent member. Vote: 8 in favour
(Bolivia, Brazil, China, France Ivory Coast, Norway, United Kingdom, United States); 3 against (Czechoslovakia, Morocco USSR).
S/6116. Morocco: amendments to United Kingdom-United States draft resolution.

S/5980. Letter of 18 September 1964 from Israel.
S/6003. Letter of 6 October 1964 from Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia United Arab Republic and Yemen.
S/6020. Letter of 19 October 1964 from Israel.

A/5700. Twenty-second progress report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (for period from I November 1963 to 30 April 1964).


A report on the organization and functioning of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Middle East was prepared in 1964 by the Secretary-General for the nineteenth session of the General Assembly.

The report covered developments from 31 August 1963 to 31 July 1964. Describing UNEF'S function of guarding and patrolling along the Armistice Demarcation Line in the Gaza Strip and the International Frontier in the Sinai Peninsula, it said that the area had remained free of any serious incidents and noted evidence of a growing sense of security among the local population.

The total number of violations by land of the Demarcation Line and the International Frontier was approximately the same as in the preceding year, and these violations were of a quite minor nature. Violations of air space, however, continued to cause concern. In spite of reductions in the strength of certain contingents of UNEF, the report added, there was no significant change in the Force's general operational functions.

Cost estimates for the maintenance of UNEF during the calendar year 1965 were also submitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General (See also p.47 and p.479.)

Plenary Meeting 1330.

A/5736 and Corr.1. United Nations Emergency Force. Report of Secretary-General.
A/5737. United Nations Emergency Force. Cost estimates for maintenance of the Force. Report of Secretary-General.
A/5884. Note by President of General Assembly on status of agenda of 19th session.


During 1964, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued to provide assistance to the more than 1,000,000 Arab refugees registered with the Agency in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip.

Laurence Michelmore took up his appointment as Commissioner-General of UNRWA on 1 January 1964, succeeding John H. Davis.


The annual report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, covering the period 1 July 1963 to 30 June 1964, was submitted to the General Assembly's nineteenth (1964) session.

In his report, the Commissioner-General stated that, although some refugees were gradually re-establishing themselves, the problem of providing assistance to a large proportion of them was likely to be one of long-term duration. In the absence of a solution, relief would "have to be provided for some large number of refugees by some method and from some source for many years to come."

The Commissioner-General gave a conjectural estimate of the degree of need among refugees receiving rations. Some 40 to 50 per cent were destitute or almost destitute; about 30 to 40 per cent were partially self-supporting but still in need of aid from UNRWA, and 10 to 20 per cent appeared to be securely re-established. He stated that, if the deadlock over repatriation continued, a large hard core of refugees would continue to live in poverty for the indefinite future.

In the view of the Commissioner-General, no discernible progress had been made during the year towards a solution of the refugee problem, and another year had passed without implementation of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly's resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.3/ (This paragraph, among other things, provided that refugees wishing to return to their homes and to live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation would be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine was instructed to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and payment of compensation.)

There had been no sign, the Commissioner-General added, that the emotions of the peoples directly concerned were growing any less intense or that the problem itself was any less intractable or less dangerous to the peace and stability of the Middle East.

UNRWA had continued to stress its programmes of general education and vocational training and had provided relief and health services to those in need. The Agency would continue its efforts to rectify its ration rolls.

The Commissioner-General said that UNRWA faced a deficit of $1.4 million in 1964 and the possibility of a large one in 1965. The 1964 deficit was due to a slight decline in income and an increase in expenditure, almost entirely on education services. UNRWA proposed to spend $37 million in 1965, of which 45 per cent would be spent on relief, 42 per cent on education and 13 per cent on health services.


Registration. During 1964, the number of refugees registered with UNRWA rose by 34,575, bringing the total, as at 31 December 1964, to 1,262,649. There were 678,985 refugees registered in Jordan, 293,024 in the Gaza Strip, 157,274 in Lebanon and 133,366 in Syria.

Food. UNRWA distributed basic dry rations to some 69 per cent (876,297 as at 31 December 1964) of the registered refugees, providing each with an average of 1,500 calories per day in summer and 1,600 in winter. The number of refugees receiving rations dropped by 3,500 in the course of the year. Supplementary feeding and milk distribution programmes provided extra nourishment for children, pregnant and nursing women, tuberculosis patients and others vulnerable to malnutrition.

Shelter. Approximately 39 per cent (491,137) of the refugees were registered in the Agency's 54 refugee camps. The others had found accommodation, often no better than that in the camps, in cities, towns and villages.

Health. There were no major epidemics during 1964 and health records remained satisfactory. UNRWA maintained or subsidized 102 static and 10 mobile clinics and more than 1,800 hospital beds.

Education. At the beginning of the 1964-65 academic year, 172,720 refugee children were enrolled in the 406 schools operated jointly by UNRWA and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Grants-in-aid from UNRWA also enabled almost 60,000 to attend government or private schools. UNRWA made available 652 university scholarships for outstanding students. During 1964, in co-operation with UNESCO, an Institute of Education began a large-scale, in-service teacher training programme.

Vocational Training. During 1964, for the first time, all 10 of UNRWA's vocational and teacher training centres produced graduates; a total of 1,400 young refugees received diplomas. The training centres had a total capacity of 3,500, and another 400 refugees received training at other institutions with assistance from UNRWA. The Agency's centres offered 31 courses for men and seven for girls, in addition to teacher training and agricultural training.

Welfare Services. The welfare programme included a number of activities in the field of community development, including the operation of youth activities centres, a scouting programme, adult training courses, a women's activities programme and encouragement of small refugee co-operatives. UNRWA also continued to give assistance to individual cases of extreme hardship and to some young handicapped refugees. Used clothing, collected by voluntary agencies and brought to the Middle East at UNRWA's expense, was distributed to refugees in need.


On 20 December 1962,4/ it will be recalled, the General Assembly decided to extend until 30 June 1965 the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

In the special circumstances prevailing during the first part of its nineteenth session (1 December 1964 - 18 February 1965) the General Assembly did not find it possible to consider the report of the Commissioner-General. On 8 February 1965, however, the Secretary-General drew the Assembly's attention to the need to extend the mandate of UNRWA beyond its expiration date of 30 June 1965 and suggested that, without prejudice to existing resolutions on the subject or to the positions of any of the interested parties, the Assembly should agree to extend the mandate for a further year until 30 June 1966.

At a plenary meeting on 10 February 1965, the Assembly approved a draft resolution submitted by the President whereby it extended the mandate of UNRWA for a further year up to 30 June 1966, without prejudice to existing resolutions or to the positions of the interested parties. This was approved, without objection, as resolution 2002 (XIX). (For full text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


The General Assembly's Ad Hoc Committee for the Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to UNRWA met on 17 February 1965. Representatives of 34 Governments pledged a total of almost US$33 million in support of UNRWA's work during 1965. Nine countries - Austria, Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway - either made pledges for the first time or announced increased contributions while two - the United Kingdom and the United States - warned of future decreases. Both of the latter called for rectification of the relief rolls.

Addressing the Ad Hoc Committee, the Commissioner-General stressed that the Palestine refugees' need for large-scale assistance continued. To carry out its programme and to cover increasing expenditure on education and training the Agency needed even more funds than had been available in the past.

The Commissioner-General said that UNRWA would seek further improvements in the conduct of all its activities, including the distribution of food rations, to secure for the genuinely needy refugees the maximum benefit of all UNRWA expenditures. But, barring a significant increase in contributions, some services would have to be reduced. In 1964, he noted, expenditure exceeded income by about $2 million, reducing the Agency's working capital to a minimum level.


During the financial (calendar) year 1964, 46 countries and territories pledged the equivalent of $33,944,061 for UNRWA's activities. By 31 December 1964, the equivalent of $33,344,060 had been received in payment of these pledges.

(Showing equivalent in U.S. dollars of pledges and contributions
in cash, kind and services)

Pledging Contributions
Government Pledge Received

Australia 201,600 201,6OO
Austria 5,000 5,000
Belgium 32,000 2,000
Canada 925,926 925,926
Central African Republic 398 398
Ceylon 1,000 1,000
China 3,279 3,279
Cyprus 279 279
Denmark 60,000 60,000
Finland 10,000 10,000
France 228,564 228,564
Gaza Authorities 104,072 104,072
Germany, Federal
Republic of 400,000 400,000
Ghana 3,000 3,000
Greece 15,000 15,000
Holy See 6,000 6,000
India 21,008 -
Iran 6,000 -
Iraq 2,000 2,000
Ireland 20,000 20,000
Italy 160,000 -
Japan 20,000 20,000
Jordan 105,357 105,357
Kuwait 220,110 -
Lebanon 29,241 29,241
Libya 20,000 -
Luxembourg 3,000 -
Malaysia 1,500 1,500
Monaco 204 204
Morocco 19,763 19,763
Netherlands 114,883 114,883
New Zealand 140,000 140,000
Nigeria 5,000 -
Norway 63,000 63,000
Pakistan 20,964 20,964
Philippines 1,250 1,250
Spain 33,333 33,333
Sweden 354,959 354,959
Switzerland 115,554 20,671
Syria 90,226 90,226
Tunisia 4,000 -
Turkey 8,000 -
United Arab Republic 248,591 248,591
United Kingdom 5,400,000 5,400,000
United States* 24,700,000 24,700,000
Yugoslavia 20,000 -
___________ ___________

Total 33,944,061 33,344,060

* Pledges payable on a matching basis, not to exceed 70
percent of contributions paid by all other Governments. The
pledge was made for the fiscal period 1 July to 30 June; the
contribution pledged for both 1963-64 and 1964-65 totalled


Plenary Meetings 1326-1328, 1330.

A/5813. Report of Commissioner-General of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in Near East, 1 July 1963 - 30 June 1964.
A/5884. Note by President of General Assembly on status of agenda of 19th session.
A/L.458. Draft resolution submitted by President of General Assembly.
RESOLUTION 2002 (XIX), as proposed by Assembly President, A/L.458, adopted by Assembly on 10 February 1965, meeting 1328, with no objection.

"The General Assembly,

"Recalling its resolution 1856 (XVII) of 20 December 1962, by which it extended the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East until 30 June 1965,

"Having noted the statement of the Secretary-General at the 1327th plenary meeting of the General Assembly, on 8 February 1965,

"Decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for a further year up to 30 June 1966, without prejudice to existing resolutions or to the positions of the interested parties."


1/ See Y.U.N., 1963, p.62, text of resolution 1912 (XVIII).

2/ See Y.U.N., 1948-1949, pp.174-75.

3/ See Y.U.N., 1948-1949, p.175.

4/ See Y.U.N., 1962, p.144.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter